The ideal scenario is everyone suspects it's you but can't prove it.

You have both the desired threat, but no concrete biases for an official response.

Also an uncertainty limits action - it might be a random event, it could even be a false flag.

One of the problem's here is narratives are being spun by multiple actors and it depends on who you believe.

You don't need a real basis for a response. There's nobody here enforcing any rules.

If you wanted you could claim you have evidence, without having any. Doesn't matter.

"This better stop or there will be sanctions, and if its not within your power to stop it, tough luck" is a valid response.

Whether that's wise is another question.

Right, but you absolutely need the suspicion. If it's too deniable, it rather loses efficacy. It seems in this situation it could be any number of actors, which rather dilutes any intended message.

> The ideal scenario is everyone suspects it's you but can't prove it.

Why? EU countries have shown time and time again they won't do anything. I mean for God's sake, Russia was caught sending THREE remote controlled flying bomb on a German airfield, with another one found by a passerby before it was launched.

They contained professionally made Russian explosives. There is no doubt who did it. This was not the first, or the 10th time they got caught. I mean Russia murdered someone in the UK with polonium, for God's sake.

The idea that the Kremlin is worried in the slightest that you can prove it's them is absurd. They leave their fingerprints knowing there will be no reaction.